Debates of May 3rd, 2023

Motions in Amendment

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I truly share the frustration of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. When our party was not recognized, we could not move our amendments in committee either.

Instead of asking a question, I would like to make a statement. I must commend the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for the excellent work that she has done and was able to deliver to the Standing Committee on the Environment. I also want to acknowledge the work of Nature Canada, an environmental protection association that is almost always one step ahead of us. Nature Canada put forward these amendments that we are discussing today, and the members for Victoria and Saanich—Gulf Islands are speaking on their behalf. I want to thank them.

We, as members of Parliament, are generalists and we need these experts, these specialists, to inform our thinking and give us a better understanding of the issues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Repentigny. I absolutely agree with what she said about NGOs like Nature Canada that have worked on the issue of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

It is unbelievable to think that we now have the opportunity to make changes to part 6 of the bill in order to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but that the government is choosing to do nothing. We could protect the public against risks related to GMOs in food. It is outrageous.

We really need to try to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act with regard to the management of toxic substances in order to protect Canadians from big corporations that are a danger to our environment and human health.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the amendments the member put forward at report stage, in particular, the work of Nature Canada and the criticisms to the language of interested parties when it comes to public consultation, how important it is that we have public consultation, and how problematic that particular language is.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, relying on my previous work as a practising lawyer, the words “interested parties” definitely mean the chemical industry would be an interested party. They do not mean Nature Canada would automatically be an interested party.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. It proposes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, also known as CEPA.

As members know, our government introduced Bill S-5 in the Senate on February 9, 2022. Over the past year, Bill S-5 has moved steadily through the parliamentary process. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous contribution from parliamentarians on all sides of the House, and their insight and efforts to advance and strengthen this bill.

The parliamentary process was clearly a success. The committees that worked on this bill spent nearly 50 hours studying it. They heard testimony from over 80 witnesses representing civil society, academia, industry and indigenous organizations, and received more than 100 written briefs. In the end, over 40 amendments were adopted, with the government supporting more than half of these changes. The bill is stronger as a result, and the government supports it.

It is now time to pass the bill as reported by the ENVI committee, send it back to the other place and, most importantly, ensure that the bill receives royal assent without delay so we can implement it.

Bill S-5 would be the first major overhaul of CEPA in more than a generation, as many members have pointed out. The bill would modernize CEPA in two key areas. First, it would recognize a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. Second, it would strengthen the foundation for chemicals management in Canada and enable robust protection for Canadians and their environment from the risks posed by harmful substances.

The recognition of the right to a healthy environment, as provided under this act, would be an important achievement. It would be the first time such a right has been recognized in federal legislation. Under the bill, the government would have a duty to protect that right and uphold related principles, such as environmental justice. Within two years, if it comes into force, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act.

People may ask what difference the recognition of this right would make. They should recall that CEPA provides the foundation for multiple programs aimed at preventing pollution, such as those dealing with air quality, environmental emergencies, greenhouse gases and, of course, the chemicals management program. The right would apply to the administration of the whole act.

I will take one principle: environmental justice. I have heard those words in the chamber today. It includes avoiding disproportionate harmful impacts on vulnerable populations. Examining decision making from this perspective would require a greater understanding of who is most impacted by pollution and putting some priority on addressing those situations. Because a solid understanding of the situation would be important, the bill would require the ministers to conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the protection of the right to a healthy environment.

Complementary to that right, the bill would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent. Amendments confirmed the role of indigenous knowledge in decision-making related to the protection of the environment and health, and encouraged examination of whether CEPA is implemented in a way that advances reconciliation.

Bill S-5 would also modernizes Canada's approach to chemicals management by, among other things, emphasizing protection of Canadians who are most vulnerable to harm from chemicals, encouraging the shift to safer alternatives and accounting for the reality that Canadians are exposed to chemicals from multiple sources, often referred to as cumulative effects.

Central to these amendments is the proposal to develop and implement a plan of chemicals management priorities. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health would develop this plan in consultation with stakeholders within two years of royal assent. It would set out a multi-year integrated plan for chemical assessments, as well as supporting research and information-gathering activities. The plan would also consider factors such as vulnerable populations, cumulative effects and safer alternatives, as I have already said.

This proposal was strengthened with amendments, supported by the government, that would require the plan to include timelines and that it be reviewed every eight years following its publication. Recognizing that Canadians are exposed to multiple chemicals from many different sources, the bill broadens the scientific basis for risk assessments under CEPA to include consideration of cumulative effects and vulnerable populations. Amendments adopted at committee introduced the related concept of a vulnerable environment. The changes will help ensure that assessors consider real-world exposure scenarios.

To support the shift to safer alternatives, the bill would establish a new watch-list of chemicals of potential concern. Amendments adopted at committee clarify the process for removing chemicals from the watch-list and provide helpful guidance to industry and other chemical users. The bill would also shift the risk-management paradigm under CEPA by expanding its regulatory focus to a broader subset of toxic substances, that is toxic substances that pose the highest risk, and requiring that priority be given to prohibiting activities and releases of these toxic substances.

However, amendments adopted at committee and supported by the government make it clear that it must include toxic substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, in addition to persistent and bioaccumulative substances, which departments have always aimed to eliminate. These important changes bring CEPA in line with the latest science and understanding of environmental and health risks.

Having summarized the key chemicals management components of the bill, I will now speak to some cross-cutting themes that came in through amendments.

Openness, transparency and accountability in environmental and health protections were major themes underlying many of the amendments made to the bill at committee. These included a preambular statement to this effect, along with various timelines and reporting requirements for the risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. These changes would increase accountability under CEPA and ensure risks to Canadians and their environment from chemicals are assessed and managed in a timely fashion.

Similarly, amendments made to the bill would create a more open and transparent regime for confidential business information by requiring that claimants justify their confidentiality requests against Access to Information Act criteria, and would require that the Minister of the Environment review and validate a statistically representative sample of confidentiality requests and report annually on the results.

Animal testing is another major theme of the amendments to the bill, with the committee adding several new provisions aimed at replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals. Moreover, the plan of chemical management priorities discussed earlier would include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals.

These amendments are consistent with work under way in other jurisdictions around the world, such as the U.S. and EU, and help further this government's commitment to move away from vertebrate animal testing. This includes continuing to work with industry, academia and our international partners to develop and evaluate non-animal alternative methods with the goal of moving closer to ending animal testing. In fact, the government recently reaffirmed its commitment to end cosmetics testing on animals in the 2023 federal budget, and with amendments to the Food and Drugs Act tabled in Bill C-47. These CEPA amendments would be an important complement to this work.

Lastly, on the topic of amendments, not all of the amendments that were made to the bill in the other place were maintained, but I would say majority were. There were some that were not in keeping with the principles of the act, would be difficult to implement or were premature, in light of ongoing consultations being undertaken by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada. As I mentioned before, this is not the last chapter on CEPA.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I appreciate that there has been some work done on this bill to make it stronger and very much appreciate the work that my colleague from Victoria has done on this bill. However, as I have been sitting on the committee listening to the testimony on the Kearl mine spill in northern Alberta, I have been listening to horrific testimony from indigenous leaders on what this has meant in their communities.

I wonder if the member could tell me how on earth he can look those people in the eye and explain to them that tailings ponds would not be protected under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that the water and land in their communities, where they fish, hunt and live with their families, are not worthy of being protected under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. How on earth can Liberal members stand and say that tailings ponds do not deserve any sort of environmental protection through this act?

It baffles the mind, and I certainly am not comfortable going back to those people and telling them that the government does not care about the environment they live and breath in.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's statement and question.

The sentiment she expressed at the committee meeting was one of disgust and disappointment. I did look Chief Adam in the eye. Everyone around that table was very incredulous at how something like this could happen and how notification was not given.

That is why the minister has established a working group. He has extended his hand to the indigenous peoples of that area and to the Alberta government. We will be working together for solutions, not only in the short term but also in the long term.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain substance out there called penta. It has a much longer scientific name attached to it. In essence, it is used to treat utility poles. This substance is being phased out, but the government has not approved a substitute for it yet. As I understand it, if it is going to eliminate something, it is supposed to implement something else to be a replacement for it, yet the government has not done that. The problem with that is it becomes a health and safety issue for people who are working on utility poles.

I am wondering why the government has not bothered to approve a new substance that could be used in place of penta, even though it has forced these companies to no longer use it?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was not aware of the particular issue the member has raised today. I will certainly take it back and see where things lie in terms of safer alternatives.

One of the major thrusts of CEPA is looking for those safer alternatives. We will be looking to the innovation and ingenuity of our scientists, researchers and universities to find alternatives so we can replace substances that are harming the environment or human health.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to be brief when talking about an issue like this.

We had a wonderful opportunity to demand action on air pollution and the labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products.

In his speech, my colleague referred to the European Union. Let us look at the example of GMO labelling. The European Union is light years ahead of Canada. Even the United States is beginning to require and tighten regulations.

Why did we not take advantage of the opportunity presented by Bill S‑5 to help Canada catch up with the other countries that are really far ahead of us?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe when I was referring to the EU, I was referring to cosmetic testing.

The whole basis of CEPA is to have risk-based analysis versus the hazard-based management system of the European Union. I believe our system is much more superior for protecting human health and the environment. It has served our country well, and we have made major improvements to CEPA that would make it even better.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Government Appointments.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on Bill S‑5, dealing with the important issues of the environment and climate change. As hon. members know, I have the pleasure and privilege of being the official opposition critic on the environment and climate change. I was named such by the leader of the official opposition and member for Carleton, and so I take the lead on these matters.

We all recognize that climate change is real, that humans played a role in climate change and that humans therefore have a role to play in addressing climate change and mitigating it as much as possible. I also want to remind members that this bill is at its final stage. We will support the spirit of the bill. We believe it represents significant progress in dealing with environmental challenges.

We have been waiting for such a bill, and rightly so, since the first version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1999. It has been nearly a quarter century, or exactly 24 years, since there has been an update to this environmental protection legislation. It needed to be done, it has been done and we are happy about that.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that this bill is not new. It was introduced two years ago as a House of Commons bill, Bill C‑28. The work was under way, good progress was being made and, all of a sudden, it had to be abandoned. Why? Because the Liberal government, or rather the Prime Minister — I was told that many in the government and in that party did not entirely agree — in the middle of a pandemic, at the start of the fourth wave of COVID‑19, decided to trigger an election that cost Canadian taxpayers over $600 million, only to end up with about the same result.

Consequently, we lost over a year on this bill, which found its way back on the agenda through a side door, let us say. I am not saying that there is a main door and a side door. Let us say that the two doors are equally important: the door of the House of Commons and the door of the Senate. Oddly, the government decided to introduce this new bill by knocking on the Senate door. That is their right, but it is still surprising.

We are now at the last stage after having heard 80 witnesses and studied about 100 briefs. The bill, with its 60-or-so pages and dozens and dozens of clauses, received very little consideration in committee, in the Senate and here. As I said earlier, these are steps forward that are welcomed by environmental groups and by industry.

Before I go any further, I just want to make a small observation. Earlier, I heard the leader of the Green Party rightly point out that she finds it regrettable that, in our parliamentary system, independent members cannot bring forward amendments or take part each day in parliamentary committees to improve the rules. That may indeed be a bit troubling to see, as we are all elected, but the rules are the rules and they must be respected. We know the rules.

I should mention another situation that may seem a bit unfortunate for Canadian democracy, but those are the rules. In 2019, the Liberal Party obtained fewer votes than the Conservative Party. Who formed government? The Liberal Party, because they had more members. In 2021, the Liberal Party obtained fewer votes than the Conservative Party, but the Liberal Party formed government. Why? Because they had more members.

People who observe democracy in the true sense of the word will wonder how those who obtained the most votes do not form government. It is because our rules are established in that way. We, the Conservatives, are a party of law and order, and we respect the rules. Are we happy with the situation? Of course not. Do we follow the rules? Yes. We do our work properly. The same goes for all independent members.

Let us now go to the issue and substance of this bill.

As I said earlier, this bill is not brand new. It was tabled two years ago, but we had an election. This bill would refresh an old bill from 1999 that was debated and adopted by the House of Commons. That is why we have to refresh it.

I would like to mention three fundamental aspects. The bill is so thick I could talk about this for hours.

Essentially, the bill stipulates that everyone has a right to a healthy environment. This is a major breakthrough. At the same time, the concept of what constitutes a healthy environment is open to debate and interpretation, and needs to be defined. The bill proposes a 2-year period for developing a legal framework that establishes exactly what constitutes a healthy environment.

The first stage is a step in the right direction, and we welcome this progress.

The bill acknowledges the importance of vulnerable populations. These vulnerable populations must be taken into account when it comes time to develop or approve new projects with environmental impacts or to assess the potential toxicity of certain projects.

The bill also provides for the creation of a mechanism for regulating chemical substances. Some might call them toxic substances, but we prefer to speak of chemical substances that can be assessed in some way or another, but that must be effectively regulated by this bill.

This is why I think the bill is going in a good direction. It is not the end of the road, but it is a good direction.

We have to recognize that some green activists are very positive about it, and recognize that we can do something more and that this is not enough. We also have to recognize that industry people sometimes see things as tough but think this a good way to address the issue.

That is why this is a step in the right direction. It was eagerly awaited by environmental groups and industry folks who managed to work together at times and against one another at other times. That is democracy for you. This is the bill we ended up with.

This bill is another great reminder that this government is heavy on rhetoric but pretty light on concrete results.

Let us not forget that not so long ago, on April 20, 2023, the commissioner of the environment tabled five reports in the House that were not very positive. The reports were specifically about the government's concrete achievements. The commissioner, Jerry V. DeMarco, made a rather stinging mention of the Prime Minister's very ambitious goal of planting two billion trees by 2031. What a laudable commitment. How beautiful and exciting, emotional even, since he made it in the company of the person who was attracting the most attention worldwide on the environment. The Prime Minister actually used that individual to make an announcement that he considered historic, important and sensible for the future of the entire planet. He promised to plant two billion trees.

Once again, we see a lot of rhetoric and a lot of images, but very few results. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying it, it is the environment commissioner who has said that the tree planting program will not reach the objectives set by the government.

This same commissioner also stated that a good number of the regulations made and implemented by the government cannot measure actual effectiveness. It is fine to announce regulations that are supposed to be ambitious, rigorous and demanding, but the ability to assess results is lacking. There is a lot of talk and few concrete results.

The environment commissioner also stated that the government was not doing enough for species at risk. A COP15 conference was held in Montreal. I want to salute the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who, as we know, was an ardent environmental activist. He hosted the entire world in his backyard, because his riding is very close to where the conference was held. Protecting certain environments was one of the topics addressed at this conference. That was a good thing, so I say bravo. That said, the environment commission said that this government is not doing enough for species at risk.

I also could have talked about the report released by the UN at COP27, which found that, under this government, Canada is ranked 58th out of 63 countries. Canada, after eight years of Liberal governance, is ranked 58th out of 63 countries for environmental protection.

As my time has expired, I will happily and resolutely answer any questions.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his work on the environment committee. He always brings accountability into the discussions and looks at ways forward so we can work together for the betterment of both our ridings and, in fact, of all Canadians.

One of the things we discussed at committee was the plan for chemicals management. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has to develop this plan within two years of royal assent and have a multi-year, integrated plan for chemical assessments that supports research and information-gathering activities.

The hon. member across the way talked about accountability, and I think he mentioned in committee that we should have timelines. We did modify our proposal so that the plan would be reviewed every eight years following publication.

Could the hon. member talk about the need to hold not only the government's but the industry's feet to the fire to make sure things get done?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate working with the hon. member and all the other members of the environmental committee. That was my first hard work, I would say, on this issue since I was appointed on the climate change issue. I am very proud to be the shadow minister on this issue.

Yes, I do agree. Things are moving so fast in our world right now. We see climate change and we have to address it as soon as possible, but the technology and the impact are moving very fast. This is why we need to review it. We spent the last, I would say, quarter of a century before reviewing the law that had been adopted in 1999.

For sure, we do not have to wait another 24 years to address it. This is why I think we should have a time frame that will let people analyze what is right, what is working and what we have to fix, to be sure that we apply all the good rules to correct the situation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech, and I would mention that we are fellow members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

At the end of his speech, he talked about Canada's standing in the world on environmental protection.

I have a question for him. When we voted on the amendments during our study of Bill S‑5, the Conservative Party always voted with the Liberals. Does the member not think he could have voted in favour of the amendments that we developed with the help of experts and scientists specifically to improve Canada's performance?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's contribution. We were elected at the same time in 2015 and, no matter what anyone says, there is always a special connection between members who were elected the same year. I want to acknowledge her support and her efforts when it comes to the environment. I recognize that and I commend her.

Once is not a habit. Yes, there have been times when we voted with the government. It may have happened more often than she thinks or perhaps less often than she thinks. We did it because we were looking for consensus. It is important to balance the needs of environmentalists with the reality of the businesses that will have to work within these laws.

If we implement measures that are so severe, harsh and brutal that businesses are unable to achieve the targets immediately, then it is an exercise in futility.

I recognize that we have worked with the government at times, but we feel that this was a bill that needed to move forward. Yes, we offered our support and co-operation, but we have also been very critical, as I was earlier, of this Liberal government's environmental record over the past eight years.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, in our region, the great Montreal River was almost destroyed by a tailings pond that gave way because it was not maintained, so we know the damage, yet we are dealing now with industry tailings dams that are so much more massive than the one that hit out of Matachewan, Ontario.

I am concerned that the Liberal government has taken out the reference to tailings ponds, because they are such massive bodies of water and there are so many issues of contamination. It is about reassuring the public that when projects go forward, there is going to be proper oversight. I would like to ask my hon. colleague why the Liberals have decided to keep the issue of monitoring the tailings ponds out of the language.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say to address the question raised by my colleague from the NDP.

Just to be very clear and very appropriate on this, I think it is a work in motion. Yes, I think that this bill addresses some issues, some specific issues, and maybe not enough for some people. That is fine. We are working forward to adapt it, to modify it and to improve it if necessary.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased I can finally say that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is going to be revised and modernized. It would be an understatement to say that it is about time.

For more than 20 years—nearly 25 years, actually—successive federal governments have not given this law the attention it needs. Canada has been doing nothing while, elsewhere in the world, environmental regulations have been implemented everywhere. We are at the report stage of Bill S-5. The door to change has opened just a crack, and we are going to have to get our foot in that door before it closes, I am afraid.

The bill first made its way through the Senate. It arrived at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development just before Christmas. Throughout 2022, I had a huge number of meetings to better understand the expectations and needs expressed by expert associations from various technical, scientific and legal fields as well as environmental protection organizations.

Not long after the 2021 elections, the Minister of Environment acknowledged that the bill to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would be the first of many. Indeed, the scope of this piece of legislation is so vast that a formal review would have been impossible without a multi-step process. The study of Bill S‑5 also confirmed the need to avoid delay in tabling the next part of the modernization, which I eagerly look forward to.

In the time I have to speak at report stage, it would be impossible to cover everything that deserves a mention. When everything seems important, choices can be difficult. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to discuss other aspects at third reading.

To get right down to business, I wish to talk about the right to a healthy environment. The scope of application of the clauses on the right to a healthy environment does not extend beyond the boundaries of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian statutes. If protecting this right is added on to the federal government’s mission, the amendments will not necessarily create a genuine, fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, which would have been a good thing. This was confirmed unequivocally by senior officials appearing before the Senate committee and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

This right will have to be balanced by what is defined in the legislation as reasonable limits and socio-economic factors. We will have to wait for the implementation framework. When I say the door is only open a crack, that is an example.

No one is against virtue, but we have to tell it like it is. This is a step forward—although a cautious and very strictly regulated one—that will not necessarily give citizens more rights to go before the courts and ask for sanctions for projects or situations that harm the environment. I want to commend my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the rigorous amendments that she introduced in committee but that unfortunately were rejected.

Another point I wanted to make is that there has been no progress at all on pollution prevention plans, or PPPs. PPPs should be considered as a centerpiece of the environmental legal framework, a pillar even. A few years before the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, received royal assent, the environment committee of the time said, and I quote, “the Committee believes that pollution prevention should be the priority approach to environmental protection. In addition, the Committee firmly believes that CEPA should provide a key legislative base for promoting pollution prevention in Canada. ...a major shift in emphasis is required in the legislation, from managing pollution after it has been created to preventing pollution in the first place. We believe that pollution prevention will avoid, eliminate and reduce more pollution than ‘react and cure’ strategies”.

This excerpt dates back to 1995. Requiring planning for the prevention of pollution was important 25 years ago, and so just imagine what it should be today. I am saying today, because the opportunity to address the inertia of the past two decades with respect to pollution control standards based on prevention and leading to strict management of risks and dangers was within reach.

Members know that I have an interest in human health and its links to the environment. In medicine, it is often said, and quite rightly, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That can also be said about environmental pollution. Prevention, whether of illness or pollution, has to be planned.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association made this a key recommendation, one that was supported by several organizations and experts in environmental law. These experts were invited to testify at both the Senate and House of Commons committees.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was able to craft an amendment that rallied all its members. When Bill S-5 was sent to the lower chamber, the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development wanted to set it aside, to discard it. They voted against it.

Focusing the content of Bill S‑5 on principles to manage pollution and not prevent it is to give in to the wishes of the industry to continue heading in a less restrictive direction.

A minute ago I was saying that addressing the inertia was within reach. That is true, because the science and knowledge about the environment and the effects of toxic substances on the environment and on our health have grown over the past 25 years.

Experts who have studied and analyzed the regulatory system, from both a technical and legal perspective, have submitted recommendations and testified in the Senate and in committee. We were not short on resources. We had resources that could help us learn about what is happening elsewhere, to fully grasp what could truly structure progress and to offer hope that this review would be fruitful.

The industry's input prevailed when it came time to talk about the regulatory framework on toxic substances. More broadly, the industry wanted to see a legislative measure that was not overly burdensome. Some might say that is obvious.

That being said, I do not deny that listening to industry is essential for a host of good reasons. However, when the dominant narrative from the industry is inflexible and the industry seems to be wiping its feet on environmental considerations and human health just to maintain the status quo, I start to get annoyed—and I think that is an understatement.

We know that between 2006 and 2020, there was an impressive reduction in the quantity of toxic substances that were released into the air, a decline of 60%.

That said, every rose has its thorn. We also know that during the same period, land-based toxic releases, both intentional and accidental, jumped by more than 50%. They are turning their backs on analyses and facts.

Like it or not, the government has severely undermined the excellent amendments put forward by the Senate, Green Party, NDP and Bloc Québécois that relate to the consultation and public participation processes. They are turning their backs on transparency.

High-level experts pointed us in the direction of essential regulatory updates, yet the Liberal-Conservative coalition chose to support industry. They are turning their backs on balance.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois understands that environmental policy requires trade-offs between health and environmental protection objectives on one hand and commercial and industrial interests on the other. We understand that.

At least the door is open. To move forward with regulation, we need to be able to recognize the weaknesses and pitfalls that characterize this regime in Canada. There is some work that has been done in that regard.

The legislator needs to remember its responsibilities toward Canadians and the environment. It must not become complacent because that will serve only to promote the financial health of trade and industry, rather than protect the health of millions of people and the health of the environment.

I would like to be able to say that we have taken a small step for man and a large step for mankind, but instead, I have to say that we have taken a small step for health and environmental protection but that we look forward to making greater strides.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on committee. The member put forward many amendments that were similar to New Democrat amendments. Whether it was on pollution prevention planning, timelines or genetically modified organisms, I am grateful for the work that she diligently tried to push forward in committee.

We were able to strengthen some aspects of this legislation, but there are still so many gaps, and I want to ask about one of those gaps, on air quality standards. We know that the U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years and that over 15,000 lives are lost in Canada every year from air pollution. That is 15,000 people and families. Can the member speak to how this is a matter of life and death? These provisions are important and the government needs to do better.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria, with whom I serve in committee, for her question.

I think that the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were all united in trying to make the legislation a lot more binding and in trying to improve it. We are talking about the health of millions of people, human beings, and about the health of the environment. They are interconnected.

Thousands of people die every year. It is not something that anybody really seems to think about, but I believe, if memory serves, that 6% of the GDP, billions of dollars, go toward helping those who become ill as a result of air pollution.

Bill S‑5 was a good opportunity to improve that. I think we missed that opportunity.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member on the environment committee, for all her work on this bill, her very important work.

I have a question for the hon. member on the issue of air quality standards that our NDP colleague had raised. I know the Bloc is very sensitive to jurisdictional issues. One of the reasons we defeated the NDP amendment was that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Our feeling as a committee was that we needed to work on this together.

I wonder if the member would have some reflections on this, particularly the sensitive issue of jurisdiction and the importance of working together to better the environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is quite sensitive about jurisdictions and respect for jurisdictions.

The environment is a shared jurisdiction, to some extent. When the Constitution was being written in 1867, no one was talking about the environment. Now when it comes to the environment, we have to strike a balance between what the federal government can do in terms of regulations and what Quebec and the provinces can do. It is a delicate balance.

I tried to introduce amendments to bring in the idea of respect for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, but to no avail. I eventually gave up on the idea of getting such an amendment passed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question.

In this afternoon's debate, we heard about the Senate amendments, which were great amendments, about collecting information on the oil sands and tailings ponds. The Liberals have opposed that amendment.

It is a little complicated, but what we are talking about is that including tailings ponds in Bill S-5 is so rudimentary and obvious that it is deeply shocking that the Liberals do not like it, because what they are proposing to change is—